Eckman v Saco Defense [2002] JCA 136 (18 July 2002)

Eckman v Saco Defense [2002] JCA 136 (18 July 2002)

There was a binding agreement between the parties fixing contract expenses at US$650,000 as at the end of 1994, and neither party may now reopen or increase that figure. The sum of US$10,113,332 not paid to Mawarid is to be treated as profit for the purposes of the profit-sharing agreement. The Plaintiff was not in breach of duty regarding the blank letterheads. The account of profits is to be taken from 1 January 1995 on the basis of the agreed figures in the December 1994 statement.

Citation
[2002] JCA 136
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Carl Eckman; Defendant/appellant: Saco Defense Limited; Defendant/appellant: Sidem International Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment Dated 17 October 2001
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in substance; Royal Court order varied in form only.
Legal Topics
Profit Sharing Agreements, Estoppel, Contract Variation, Authority of Company Agents, Breach of Duty, Accounting for Profits
Contract Law Company Law Profit Sharing Agreements Estoppel Contract Variation Authority of Company Agents Breach of Duty Accounting for Profits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Eckman

Plaintiff/respondent

Saco Defense Limited

Defendant/appellant

Sidem International Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment Dated 17 October 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract expenses for the 'Saudi Contract' up to end 1994/1995 should be fixed at US$650,000; whether the Defendants are estopped or contractually bound from reopening or increasing that figure; whether the Plaintiff was in breach of duty regarding misuse of blank letterheads; whether the sum of US$10,113,332 unpaid to Mawarid Electronics should be treated as profit; the proper period for the account of profits.

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding agreement between the parties fixing contract expenses at US$650,000 as at the end of 1994, and neither party may now reopen or increase that figure. The sum of US$10,113,332 not paid to Mawarid is to be treated as profit for the purposes of the profit-sharing agreement. The Plaintiff was not in breach of duty regarding the blank letterheads. The account of profits is to be taken from 1 January 1995 on the basis of the agreed figures in the December 1994 statement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in substance; Royal Court order varied in form only.

Orders

  • Account of profits on the MODA contracts to be taken on the basis that total contract expenses to the end of 1994 are as stated in the December 1994 statement.
  • Account to be taken for the period commencing 1 January 1995 under the direction of the Master of the Royal Court.